MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163818160 · doi:10.1111/ecog.05563

Distinguishing effects of area per se and isolation from the sample‐area effect for true islands and habitat fragments

2021· article· en· W3163818160 on OpenAlexaff
Zachary G. MacDonald, David C. Deane, Fangliang He, Clayton T. Lamb, Felix A. H. Sperling, John Acorn, Scott E. Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessHabitatAbundance (ecology)EcologyInsular biogeographyArchipelagoFragmentation (computing)Habitat fragmentationSpecies diversityGeographyPhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The island species area relationship (ISAR) is an important tool for measuring variation in species diversity in variety of insular systems, from true‐island archipelagoes to fragmented terrestrial landscapes. However, it suffers from several limitations. For example, due to the sample‐area effect, positive relationships between species and area cannot be directly interpreted as evidence for deterministic effects of area per se. Additionally, richness‐based analyses may obscure species‐level responses to area and isolation that may better inform conservation practice. Here, we use random placement models to control for variation in abundance, occupancy and richness associated with the sample‐area effect, allowing deterministic effects of area and isolation, and how they vary with species' functional traits, to be resolved using linear mixed effects models. We demonstrate the utility of this approach using a butterfly assemblage persisting on a naturally fragmented landscape of lake islands. The ISAR did not significantly deviate from random placement in relation to island area, isolation or habitat diversity, supporting stochastic assembly consistent with the sample‐area effect. Such inferences support the habitat amount hypothesis, which prioritizes preserving the maximum amount of habitat irrespective of its degree of fragmentation. However, species‐level analyses demonstrated that species' abundances were significantly lower on both smaller and more isolated islands than what is predicted by the sample‐area effect. Moreover, effects of area per se were significantly greater for smaller, less mobile and rare species. Species' occurrences also significantly deviated from predictions of the sample‐area effect in relation to island isolation. Thus, our approach illustrates that richness‐based analyses not only result in incorrect inferences on mechanisms underlying ISARs, but also obscure important effects of area per se and isolation on individual species that vary with functional traits. We therefore suggest that these effects should not be solely inferred from richness‐based analyses, but rather evaluated on a species‐by‐species basis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207